-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I ordered a Performance 3. The car at delivery was an AWD.
- Thread starter yul sam
- Start date
Perry
Active Member
The hardware is not the same if they are binned. The design is the same but because the manufacturing process has variations the post build outcome is different. Binning puts the better build outcome into the P bin and the worse build outcome into the AWD bin. So they are not the same by definition otherwise there wouldn't be in separate bins.
I think what you are trying to say is that the design and manufacturing process is the same and yes that is true.
Elon is the one that stated the motors are binned and have double burn-in to verify performance. He is not one for marketing speak. He has always been straight forward and scientific in the comments he makes so I believe him.
Perry
Active Member
Correction, 9K more for- one second faster and 14K more for 10mph more top speed. You don't get the 10mph more with just the base performance.
Swampgator
Active Member
Have you seen those separate bins in the factory? I think based on all available evidence ( Elons tweet not withstanding) that AWD cars are just software limited Performance cars. The rear motor output is the same for RWD and P cars. Do you think they have been giving binned motors to RWD cars from the beginning, with the plan to give the lower output motors to the AWD cars?
Have you seen those separate bins in the factory? I think based on all available evidence ( Elons tweet not withstanding) that AWD cars are just software limited Performance cars. The rear motor output is the same for RWD and P cars. Do you think they have been giving binned motors to RWD cars from the beginning, with the plan to give the lower output motors to the AWD cars?
Adjusting the SW on cars that were ordered as P is not very convincing to me that all AWD are also P.
If my thermal hypothesis is correct, short term peak power could be the same for all parts. However, the motor binning would directly impact the number of laps you can get out of your P on your favorite track before thermal limiting kicks in. Or km at high speed on the Autobahn.
Without binning, one person might get (for pure example) a P that goes 5 laps, while another gets only 3. Given there are only 2 bins (unless P+ is a third bin), some Ps may (for example, not real numbers) do 5 laps while another does 6, all do at least 5.
The other (potential) factor is high speed balancing. All rotors are high speed balanced after assembly (>10k RPM). The P and P+ may have better balanced rotors (due to process variation) and so can handle the higher RPM of their top speeds. In which case, the drive unit test stand also has vibration sensors/ accelerometers to validate. Force (acceleration) due to vibration increases as the square of RPM, so this could explain the 10 MPH top speed increments...
An interesting thought (to me at least) is that this could open up a new era of modding where people tear down their drive units to hand select the best SiC power FETs and hone the thermal interface to get the maximum power for the longest time. Only useful for race conditions....
Swampgator
Active Member
Still does not explain that RWD rear motors have same output as P motors.
Again, do you really think Tesla has been using the higher spec binned motors since the beginning of production? All the while saving up the lower spec for the 6K AWD upgraded cars that would start production 1 year later.
Still does not explain that RWD rear motors have same output as P motors.
Again, do you really think Tesla has been using the higher spec binned motors since the beginning of production? All the while saving up the lower spec for the 6K AWD upgraded cars that would start production 1 year later.
First off, that is the rated power spec for the motors (software limited), who knows what the real power limit is/ headroom.
If the issue is thermal and balance, all drive units can put out the same peak power. Where they would differ is in how long they can put out high power (integral of power dissipation) and the maximum safe RPM they can sustain (maximum speed limit).
The S has more power than the 3, but will overheat on the track, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
RWD top speed is 150, P+ is 155, that is a factor of ~11% which means that off balance loads increase 23%. For the same bearing loads, the balance needs to be that much better.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. From an engineering perspective the parts are the same if they are the same part number. They are designed and built to a certain spec and as long as the parts meet that spec they are the "same". Unless Tesla has assigned a different part number to P builds then I would take that as a pretty significant clue that there is no appreciable difference between the binned and non-binned parts.
I would attribute the overheating on the S to the design of the thermal management system, not so much the drive unit(s).
I'd contend that manufacturing variances from one motor to the next is small enough to not make a difference in performance or longevity when dropped in a P or an AWD.
Swampgator
Active Member
Induction motors have heat issues that PM motors do not. That is why Tesla uses PM (SR) for rear motors in the 3.
The next gen roadster will use PM in the rear 2 motors as well (my speculation) but may use induction up front as in the 3.
I had to run to my car three times while reading this thread to see if I got what I paid for. Apparently I did get a performance version, but I am still waiting for the badges, spoiler, and unlimited supercharging that were promised but not delivered.
I did not read these forums before buying this car, and did not know that I was buying into a grand experiment with a fledgling car company. I give the car an A and the company a D.
I did not read these forums before buying this car, and did not know that I was buying into a grand experiment with a fledgling car company. I give the car an A and the company a D.
Another clue that it is more software than hardware is the percentage increase in acceleration. Perhaps the P motors go through extra testing to be sure they are at peak performance. But, 4.5->3.5 second acceleration is a 22% difference. Heat would not be a factor since it is running for a few seconds - literally 3.5 seconds or maybe 11-12 seconds to 110... If there really was more than a few percent difference in speed between the drive systems, they do not really have a good manufacturing process. I would believe a 3-5% difference not a 22% difference.
Track racing would be where the real difference would be - how long the drive system could run at top speed.
The acceleration time is simply limited by software since they know very few would pay for track mode verses the number that would pay for 22% faster 0-60. Remember the early tests of the RWD had them doing close to 4.5 seconds, but after software updates they moved back to closer to their rated 5.1. The AWD versions could probably get close to 3.0 seconds if they eliminated software limits. 3.5 second 0-60 was probably chosen to be faster than the BMW M3 yet not close enough to the model S Performance to cause problems (that 1 second is very costly not to mention ludicrous mode). 4.5 for AWD is just a tad slower than the base model S (4.2/4.1).
The model 3 weights about 1000 pounds less than the S, They have to limit it in software so the lumbering beast can keep up ;-)
Track racing would be where the real difference would be - how long the drive system could run at top speed.
The acceleration time is simply limited by software since they know very few would pay for track mode verses the number that would pay for 22% faster 0-60. Remember the early tests of the RWD had them doing close to 4.5 seconds, but after software updates they moved back to closer to their rated 5.1. The AWD versions could probably get close to 3.0 seconds if they eliminated software limits. 3.5 second 0-60 was probably chosen to be faster than the BMW M3 yet not close enough to the model S Performance to cause problems (that 1 second is very costly not to mention ludicrous mode). 4.5 for AWD is just a tad slower than the base model S (4.2/4.1).
The model 3 weights about 1000 pounds less than the S, They have to limit it in software so the lumbering beast can keep up ;-)
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Not only that- remember they uncorked the S75 to be in the low 4s shortly before the 3 launch.
They pretty clearly wanted no non-P 3 to be quicker than a non-P S (counting S models they still offered new) and ditto on the P3 not beating any for-sale P-S
Be more interesting when the 3 series gets quicker from BMW to see if there's a tesla 3 uncork in context of above
They pretty clearly wanted no non-P 3 to be quicker than a non-P S (counting S models they still offered new) and ditto on the P3 not beating any for-sale P-S
Be more interesting when the 3 series gets quicker from BMW to see if there's a tesla 3 uncork in context of above
boriszima
Member
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
I wouldn’t be posting that on a public forum. Haha.
I hope you get to keep it.
It's entirely possible that every AWD drive unit manufactured exceeds the requirements for the performance trim. Even if it is just a software switch, you're also paying for the warranty that comes with it. There's no question that extra power introduces more strain on the car and will likely cost more in warranty service.
I had a Dinan stage 2 tune on my BMW X6M. It was roughly 2-3x the price of comparable tunes, difference is the Dinan tune matched the new car warranty.
No question that Tesla is making a larger margin on the performance trim, but I'm sure there's at least some increased cost to them.
I had a Dinan stage 2 tune on my BMW X6M. It was roughly 2-3x the price of comparable tunes, difference is the Dinan tune matched the new car warranty.
No question that Tesla is making a larger margin on the performance trim, but I'm sure there's at least some increased cost to them.
Does that printout then resolve the whole “is it 75 kWh or 80.5 kWh” debate? Seems like 75 kwh is the usable portion and is consistent with my driving experience/rated vs actual range data.
Side note: on every of the last 3 pages it seems like people are saying the exact same thing.
I do wonder if service centers have records of the testing done on each VIN’s drive units. It would be cool to know that my AWD NonP met tolerances for a P (it would imply that the DUs will last longer).
I do wonder if service centers have records of the testing done on each VIN’s drive units. It would be cool to know that my AWD NonP met tolerances for a P (it would imply that the DUs will last longer).
Similar threads
